User talk:Rhododendrites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
to leave a new message click here

This is the talk page for User:Rhododendrites.


Sir Rhododendrites With regards deletions of my Biopower edits it appears to some editors that I'm engaged in some kind of OR(Original research)excise almost as if I am making everything up from no where.I can assure you that I am not I read my sources very carefully I(where ever possible) try to ingrate unknown material to the reader with clarity and precision.Now that isn't my problem that some editors believe that my edits are of some dastardly plan(something out of a Hollywood movie) to subvert Wikipedia's OR and NOPV rule the whole point of my edits is to try and show(wherever possible) the world we live in isn't all as it seems(you know the one where the president of the USA for example just appears out of nothing with "universal admiration")there is a system at work it does function with or without human consent this system has an organization has an rational and above all else will continue in its current form indestructible to any rational gaze unless a sane rational gaze can 'get at its functioning'.Hopefully an enlighten approach will be enough to the job.Also I hasten to add not all humans are subjected to bias if these editors start to read some of the unknown material that I have in my possession they may change their minds.Kind regards Richardlord50 (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Richardlord50: Hi. Let me first say thanks for spending so much time improving Foucault-related articles on Wikipedia -- I hope disputes with other editors don't cause you to stop doing so. I want to touch on three interconnected things that I hope will help, if you'll bear with me. I'm going to use this edit of yours as an example, but I think these two apply more broadly.
  1. First the more superficial but still important issue. There are grammatical, spelling, and stylistic issues that run through your edits. While this is, of course, less important than making sure the statements are correct, sources are cited, etc. it gives the impression there may be other issues and some people feel more comfortable removing blocks of content if such errors exist. The most common one is not including a space between punctuation and the next word. Also, in the edit linked above a few examples:
    • changing "their" to "there"
    • sentence structure like "social project namely the Milieu" - needs rewording or a comma/dash between "project" and "namely")
    • "Foucault doesn’t mentions" - should be "mention"
    • "one key note thinker" - technically could be correct, but "key note thinker" is unusual
    • "...which forms a parallel with Foucault's own work an Medieval historian from this period;Ernst Kantorowicz gets a brief mention here." - missing the space between the semicolon and "Ernst", there needs to be a break between "work" and "an", semicolon should be a comma, and a comma should probably also follow "Kantorowicz"
    I'll stop there -- I'm just trying to give some examples, not nitpick. It would help to run these through a good spellchecker, proofread, or even have someone else proofread. Some people have difficulty with this sort of thing, which is understandable because it's a lot less interesting than actually writing about Foucault :) but it is important. Another approach may be to post your additions to the talk page first to get feedback, so we can catch these sorts of details before it goes into the article. Or, if you get to the point where grammar and style are the only issues such that the edits wouldn't be reverted, you could make the additions to the article and then add a note to the talk page saying "I added this paragraph, would someone mind doing a quick copyedit/proofread?"
  2. The second issue is about style and tone. It's harder to explain succinctly, but basically Wikipedia strives for a particular style and tone of writing -- a formal tone typical for an encyclopedia. Taking a look at one of the featured articles should provide a good impression of encyclopedic tone. Wikipedia draws a distinction between the kind of material that's written here and that which is in a journal, newspaper, editorial, etc. Some examples will follow #3, which is intricately linked to the issues of style/tone.
  3. The "original research" issue people have brought up doesn't necessarily mean you're making anything up, and in many cases it's just a matter of presentation (style/tone). You clearly cite sources to back up what you're saying, but it looks like you're offering explanations, drawing conclusions, or making connections that are not explicitly stated in the texts you're citing. A few examples from the same edits:
    • "How did the project milieu become interwoven into the political and social relations of men?Foucault takes as his starting point.." and then later "What general components that were essential and necessary to make this consensus happen?Foucault traces the first dynamics..." - A purely stylistic example. Using rhetorical questions in this way makes it sound like you're presenting a lecture yourself, offering your own explanation for something.
    • "Here the modern version of Government is presented in the national media." - use of "here" and this style of presentation makes it sound like you're offering your own narration of the work's contents
    • "While Foucault doesn’t mentions him by name one key note thinker which forms a parallel with Foucault’s own work an Medieval historian from this period;Ernst Kantorowicz gets a brief mention here." - This is a clear-cut example of original research as Wikipedia defines it. That doesn't mean it's wrong, incorrect, or insidious -- it just means that it is you that is drawing the parallel here. The article on biopower should bring together what reliable sources say about Biopower and should not contain our own interpretations, connections, etc. In other words, if you find journal articles in which people draw the parallel between Foucault and Kantorowicz, and if there's sufficient talk of the connection such that it's worth mentioning (as determined by the extent of coverage in those sources, not our own judgment of whether it's worth mentioning), then you could cite those for this kind of material.
    • "A Medieval triumvirate appears, a private enterprise of wealth and succession which required fractious co-operation, this co-operation was needed by the three groups in an uneasy Medieval alliance..." - Use of the word "appears" functions like "here" does elsewhere in suggesting original research. The rest of the paragraph that starts with Kantorowicz is missing an awful lot of sources, and what sources are cited are primary. At the risk of being redundant to the previous bulletpoint, the only time any of these matters should be included is if reliable secondary sources have already tied them together with Foucault and Biopower -- otherwise it's original research. Again, that doesn't mean it's bad, wrong, uninteresting, unimportant, etc. -- just that it's inappropriate for Wikipedia. That distinction between primary and secondary sources is key. It is not enough that primary sources talk about similar issues; there have to be secondary sources (from journals, magazines, books, etc.) that make the connections. It's worth noting that it works a little differently based on the subject of the article, however. Biopower is a concept closely identified with Foucault so it is not inappropriate to cite Foucault directly to summarize his use of the term. But "summarize" is the key to that -- summarize what he says, but for every instance where you want to interpret or explain anything that he doesn't explicitly state, a secondary source is required. Wikipedia is full of other people's interpretations, metaphors, analogies, syntheses, etc. rather than those of our editors.
This may be more of a response than you bargained for. My reason for the long-windedness is simple: I think you have something valuable to contribute to Wikipedia. Too often editors with knowledge on a given subject want to contribute to Wikipedia but become discouraged and eventually leave after having their work undone or after negative interactions with other editors. Happy to answer any questions/give feedback. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Sir Rhododendrites

Thanks for your comments and I hope your New Year is a prosperous one.With regards your comments I have taken notice of them the Kantorowicz source I managed to find from Foucault himself where he actually mentions Kantorowicz in Discipline and Punish I have placed them in the article. With regards the following: "A Medieval triumvirate appears, a private enterprise of wealth and succession which required fractious co-operation," I didn't meant it that way,a misinterpretation of sorts what I mean is this, the political hierarchy of the Medieval period owned much of its position primarily(but not exclusively) to the legal apparatus of the day.This was then cancelled because of there lack of resources to take on the new machinery of the state by the beginning of the 18th century (fully paid bureaucracy,GDP funding, national debt funding and security features like an defense budget) all of which have to be paid for through taxation which the previous hierarchy did not have the necessary resources which would cost them trillions in $ dollar terms.This is what I was trying to get across albeit in a slow and ad hoc way Enjoy the new year Richardlord50 (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen Gill Spottswood[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


I'm contacting you because you commented on WT:WPSPAM#Spamming.

WP:DEADLINKSPAM is up and is now a centralized deadlink-replacing report. — Revi 14:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@-revi: Nice. Thanks for the heads up (and for setting up the page). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Vernon O. Johnson[edit]

Dear Rhododendrite (as a geologist I like your user name),

Thank you for your comments on Vernon O. Johnson, Anne Beckwith Johnson, and Home is Where the Bus is. In researching other personalities and books, I still find that the accomplishments of their endeavors warrants the encyclopedic entry.

Your points are well taken. I am an older user, and haven’t figured the navigation yet. I appreciate your reaching out.

The reason I added the latter two, is because the first recommendation for deletion for Vernon said that there were no links form other sites, and since books and authors are notable, I thought that they could provide that.

In today’s world it is hard to imagine what a threat the USSR was to Americans in 1960. The Trans-Siberian Railway was closed in 1917 to all tourist travel. Because of Vernon’s dogged persistence and two meetings with Premier Khrushchev, he managed to do the inconceivable. Very little of the story is in the pages, as I was trying to get across what the driving forces in a man’s life might be to have him gamble all his investments to live in a smallish bus with 8 children for almost two years in order to see if his dream of face-to-face communication could be successful in breaking down political barriers in a fearful world. And he did.

From your experience does it seem like I a completely wasting my time? My original “deleter” seems to have more knowledge about sports than Cold War issues, and i feel like I am swimming upstream.

Your thoughts? Thanks, JendaAJ (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Jenda

@JendaAJ: - Hi. Sorry it took a few days to respond.
To respond to your primary question: I don't think you're wasting your time. Wikipedia is both deceptively easy to edit and deceptively difficult to edit. Easy in that you just click edit and you can change what's on a page. Difficult in that there are a whole lot of rules, standards, techniques, discussion venues, processes, etc. that, while it's not necessary to be familiar with all of them, do require some adaptation along the way.
To clarify my own AfD opinion: I said "Keep or Move to draft namespace / Userfy". Keep is clear, but the other two are ways we delete the article from the encyclopedia but keep it's content in a different part of the site. The idea is that the subject might be appropriate, but isn't quite ready yet. When an article is prefaced by "Draft:" it can still be seen and edited until which time it's considered ready to be turned back into an article, but isn't categorized, isn't linked to from other articles, won't appear in search results, etc. Given the current discussion, I think this is a likely outcome.
What do you think about what I mentioned at the AfD? To summarize: In my opinion the subject that is notable here is probably Vernon, but may also be the bus trip or the family. Since you know the story and what sources exist best, which do you think is the focus of most of the coverage?
The two most important things going forward are
  1. Get together as many good sources as you can. Sources that verify that something is true are helpful, but far more important are sources about the subject. It's for lack of the latter that things are most often deleted as it is that kind of coverage that constitutes "notability." If they're online either as websites or scans of old materials, that's ideal -- that way other people can help you write the article and you don't have to do it yourself.
    • It's worth mentioning that "notable" is a technical term on Wikipedia defined in some detail at WP:Notability. Most books, people, events, companies, etc. are not notable by this technical meaning. Basically what is "notable" equals what has received a good amount of coverage that is (a) published in reliable sources (a gray area but largely based on things like fact-checking, editorial oversight, reputation of the author, and those sorts of traditional journalistic-style evaluations); (b) independent of the subject (not written by or published by anybody with any personal or financial connection to the subject of the article); (c) in depth (a brief mention in an article about something else doesn't help, for example); (d) over a span of time (this is also a gray area -- basically it just means a single event that had some buzz for a day and was never discussed again is not typically notable, but if the coverage was over time or for a number of things it's not a concern).
  2. Once all the sources are available, edit the article to ensure it doesn't include material that isn't covered in the cited sources, and that it reflects various aspects of the subject in proportion to which those aspects are discussed in the reliable sources. In other words there may be a good amount of extra detail. Other editors, including myself, can help with this if we have access to the sources.
At this point I wouldn't worry too much about links from other pages. It's not part of the deletion rationale currently on the table. Once the AfD is closed I can help with that if it's still an issue for anyone.
I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the Cold War by a long-shot, except as a generalist and as a chess player :) but that's typically the case on Wikipedia -- we're editors rather than authors. And to that end what is most important is that other people who do know what they're talking about have written about the subjects that are covered here.
I hope this helps. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: -- Being a chess player does count. You were incredibly helpful!! (Though I still bumble through the hoops and forget where I’ve been :>D. How do you keep track of where different conversations occurred???) I was pleased to see an editor remove the “Delete” status!!
I have been addressing all the other issues listed at the top of the VOJ page, and am uncertain as to how to eliminate them, including:
  • 'A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.’ I can’t help this, but have two unbiased editors advising me.
  • This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (December 2014)’'’ I have gotten rid of anything that might give this appearance.
  • 'The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (December 2014)’ Per subsequent editors, this has been addressed, plus we added a 48-page pdf of news articles as downloadable file.
  • This article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2014) I think it has enough here.
  • 'This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it.’ That’s why I introduced the Anne Beckwith Johnson and Home is Where the Bus Is links, but have removed those as they will likely be deleted per notability status. JendaAJ (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC) big thanks to you.
@JendaAJ: Ok, first some technical wiki stuff:
  • FYI A line break in a wiki doesn't actually create a line break, so the separate lines you created for each of the above ("A major contributor..", "This article appears..", etc.) end up collapsing to a single paragraph.
    • To create a line break/paragraph, you can either create an extra line break (creating a blank line between two lines of text) or start the next line with a symbol that indicates it's a new line (like : for an indent, * for a bulletpoint, # for a numbered list, etc.).
      • You can also combine these like I am here (this line begins with three colons (typically each person's response adds one more for each line to indent intelligibly) and three asterisks (third-level bulletpoint))
  • Keeping track of different conversations can be kind of tricky. When you edit a page it's usually a good idea to "watch this page". Later, when someone else edits the same page, it will show up in your watchlist (see Special:Watchlist). You can also check your user contribution history to find pages you've contributed to. When a page is nominated for deletion, a record of that discussion is linked to from that article's talk page (see Talk:Vernon O. Johnson near the top). Other than that, it's mostly a matter of becoming familiar with the layout of things and how things link together. It's not always easy, though, and since I have something like 4000 pages on my watchlist and have edited another many thousand on top of that, I bookmark things I think I'll want to come back to and keep some records via text files on my desktop.
  • Nobody expects you to remember all of this, by the way. There are many venues to ask for help. WP:TEAHOUSE is probably the best place for new editors to ask just about anything.
Regarding deletion:
  • The deletion tag wasn't simply removed from the Vernon O. Johnson article by another editor. The removal of the tag is just a formality once the deletion discussion has been closed -- and it was closed with consensus to keep the article.
Regarding maintenance templates (that's what we call those notices at the top of the page you've copied here):
  • Basically those tags can be added by anybody to just about any article to point out concerns. If the person who added them isn't clear about why they were added, best practice is to start a new section on the article's talk page asking how best to address them. If nobody responds, you can just remove them. Ideally, however, people will respond, the problem(s) can be addressed, and then they can be removed.
  • A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject - You're right, you can't help this. Because people use Wikipedia for promotional purposes all the time, many of us can be cynical when it comes to people writing about things that concern them directly (personally, financially, etc.). In my experience the best approach would be to create a section on the talk page disclosing your conflict of interest, explaining that people are helping you and also asking for feedback/advice to ensure the article doesn't come off as promotional.
  • This article appears to be written like an advertisement. - Another one it would be best to ask about on the talk page (and you may want to ping C.Fred as the one who added the tags in the first place). Since you do have a conflict of interest, even if you're acting in good faith, people may still be cynical if you remove this one yourself. Best to bring it up on the talk page and wait for someone else to remove it.
  • The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. - I removed this just now. The deletion discussion addressed indeed addressed it.
  • This article needs additional citations for verification. - I removed this one, too. Lots of sources. If someone has a problem now it's probably more likely about WP:UNDUE than verifiability.
  • This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. - This one isn't as big of a deal. Go to the article for his hometown and add him to "Notable residents" if such a section exists. Or a "notable alumni" page at a school he attended. Maybe there's an article about events that took place that year where it would make sense to add the bus trip. Maybe a list of soldiers. There are so many pages on Wikipedia -- this is just about finding a few to link from rather than adding new articles to link from.
--— Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sourced material need shouldn't be removed[edit]

I'm going to revert the part about Jewish supremacism because it exists. It is both written about in the Bible, torah and many other texts. And have a lot to back it up. It's nothing less to vandalism to remove it.

You should rather ban the user who vandalizes the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olehal09 (talkcontribs) 02:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Olehal09: - Hi. The reason I reverted your edit and left the message on your talk page actually has nothing to do with what you wrote, but that you're trying to force your additions via an edit war (repeatedly making the same or very similar changes when others undo them). That's never the right way to go and disrupts both the editing of the article and the process of collaboration. More practically, for your sake, it also attracts attention [of passerbys like me] who will revert because you're edit warring regardless of what it is you're edit warring about. Because Wikipedia operates by consensus, any challenged material needs to be discussed and justified on the talk page before being included (regardless of how true it is). A good model to follow is WP:BRD: make a Bold edit (add/remove substantial content), someone else might Revert it, and then it's time to Discuss on the talk page. You'll probably find you have more influence over the article content by going about it that way rather than simply reinserting the material. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, noted. I'm not going to continue this edit war, but if no one discuss with me on the talk page, I'll take that as proof that we've reached a consensus. Olehal09 (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


You wrote clearly what I should have written (and what I thought that I had read). I don't understand how the people wanting to keep the article are invoking the organizational notability guideline (GNG?). (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. WP:CORPDEPTH would normally apply to an organization like this, but given the centrality of criminal activity it renders that particular guideline moot. WP:GNG is the general notability guideline -- the rule of thumb that can be applied to any article. Most more specific notability criteria like CORPDEPTH are logical extensions of GNG. There's a list someone put together of frequently cited policies and guidelines in deletion debates here: Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates. But yeah, it's a pretty cut and dry delete. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

My Judy Rifka addition to Fluxus.[edit]

I have lots of documentation of Judy Rifka as a contemporary fluxus artist. Just need time to gather the citations for documentation. I've added a footnote reference to a Huffington Post article since your deletion in the article on Fluxus. The placement of my initial addition to her wikilink Judy Rifka was especially appropriate when discussing fluxus in cyberspace. Sorry that I didn't realize that (undo) was the wrong way to approach the reversion to my original comment.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mitzi.humphrey: Thanks for the message. The general rule for artists in art movement articles (or any specific example in an article about a larger subject) is that he/she should be presented in proportion to his or her role in the entire body of literature on the subject. So whereas a very high percentage of work on fluxus talks about George Maciunas, none of the work talks about me, and somewhere between there is just about everybody else :) If there are no sources about fluxus that talk about Rifka, it's highly unlikely it would be due weight to mention her beyond adding her to the list at the bottom. Maybe a sentence or two if many sources which aren't about fluxus nonetheless call her work fluxus or mention her in connection to it. It comes down to the fact that there's a whole lot out there about fluxus, so there's a higher bar than, say, something like metamodernism and somewhat lower than for abstract expressionism (again, based on the availability of sources on each). It's all very hard to measure, of course, and these standards, while part of Wikipedia policy, are not uniformly enforced. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Rhododentrites: I'll try to work up a draft of documentation of Fluxus contributions by Judy and add them when I have more time. Thank you for your suggestions.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

List of cryptids[edit]

Hi Rhododendrites, you've recently reverted a spurious addition to this list by a known serial IP vandal - I've left a message on EncMstr's talk page as he is pretty good at promptly blocking the IP. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bahudhara: Thanks for the heads up. What exactly is the user's MO? Is it connected to this SPI mentioned on EncMstr's page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpaceX33333? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
No, this IP user is not the same - his MO consists of constructing fake taxonomies for biological and palaeological topics (including some paranormal and non-living phenomena!). He has been intermittently active for more than 2 years, and never responds to messages on his talkpage. On occasions he has created new articles consisting of gibberish mixed with text copy-pasted from other articles. Due to these being quickly deleted, he has changed his MO to creating article talk pages, rather than actual articles. The IP addresses he uses are scattered over an area of north-eastern Pennsylvania. Occasionally he uses what may be his own name - Edward Ostroski. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015[edit]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SPI case[edit]

You can check here for the SPI case I have opened after evaluating comments from [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitesh Estates Limited]‎]: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kratipaw34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethically Yours (talkcontribs) 06:45, 12 January 2015‎

@Ethically yours: Thanks. Indeed is an issue. I commented at the SPI but unfortunately this week I won't have any blocks of time big enough to contribute much to it. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You're good at Wikiquette[edit]

Cookbooks make nice presents for cookie thieves!

Your patience and calm do you well, per AGF. I was impressed by the way you went beyond explaining what you were doing (deleting contentious unsourced material) to give the user you reverted instructions on how they, too, may do so constructively. That technique may not always work, but it seems like a great way to start making a good editor out of a POV newbie who, after all, has demonstrated interest in editing Wikipedia one way or another. Cheers! FourViolas (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@FourViolas: Thanks. :) Better to waste time than to lose a potentially productive editor. Based on emails I received, I think we can conclude it was not fruitful in this case, though. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh well. You get karma, and our friend has a harder time convincing himself that WP is evil. Plus, you've practiced being kind and civil, which will serve you well in case you ever take a job as a diplomat. Cheers! FourViolas (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

delsort script[edit]

Hey, I stole your version of the delsort script and added it to my own, this is exactly what I was looking for thanks! War wizard90 (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@War wizard90: Great! Can I ask what's different about yours? (I'm editing on a mobile device presently, which makes extensive hunting/comparison challenging) :) --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I just had the standard script installed which only has basic categories for sorting, and they weren't organized in any particular manner. I noticed you were sorting more complex categories using delsort, and saw you had a custom script and tried it, this version is much more useful for sorting AfD's. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Performance Licensing redirects[edit]

Ah, thanks. I'll work on that. MW (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Smallgwg: Great. If you have questions about this in the future feel free to ask, of course. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Linking to the thread this concerns for my future reference. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015[edit]

Nice work![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png The WikiCookie
You've learned how to use basic wikicode in your sandbox. You can always return there to experiment more.

Posted automatically via sandbox guided tour. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]

DYK for The American Review (literary journal)[edit]

Harrias talk 02:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

right right. Sure, theres "templates for a reason"[edit] Why is it here at Heavy Metal are either of you not changing this. It looks Dramatically better and is ACCURATE. If you want more details, the Main Article is hardcore punk. The word main article in the see more section isn't helping. Heavy Metal is more popular. I also have ( a few) 100,000 (hundred thousand) units behind me in Hardcore Punk. I am an expert on the genre for sure, Furthermore Heavy Metal is More Popular why not change those to fit your "templates" . Is it such a big deal tp try and flex "editor" muscle. What are you actually Improving with a less professional way of wording things 2601:C:2081:2B30:E166:8F28:8B75:2ABF (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Its an underground semi-above ground genre anytime we get something to present it in a much more uniform professional manor, many times someone who probably hasn't much experience with it meddles and makes it look amateur. Thanks for that. Well done. (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)What in the world does any of this have to do with changing a template to "for more information"? If you want something changed on Wikipedia, ranting about being an expert, edit warring, and demanding your way is more accurate will get you nowhere. That's just the kind of site this is. Edit warring in particular will immediately make the benefit of the doubt go to whatever position you're not supporting (the assumption is that whoever is right can convince people they're right on the talk page and not resort to edit warring). In this case, however, it's an easy one because it's a basic stylistic thing. We have templates for a reason, as I said. If you don't like the template, take it up at Template talk:Main or WT:MOS. Otherwise it's a basic matter of wanting consistency of style across the site. There are other similar templates like Template:See also (and others linked from there), but use one of them. Templates also allow people to run various reports about template use to come up with, say, a list of article sections which contain a summary of another article (something use of the Main template would allow for that some text would not). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome :-)[edit]

I received a "thank you" message from you for just a little edit in Hate speech. I appreciate that very much since I'm not a native english speaker, and I was a bit insecure if my edit is correct at all. That's why I want to thank you for your "thank you" :-). --J.Ammon (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@J.Ammon: It was indeed correct. Thanks for improving the wiki (and for the thanks-thanks :) ). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

message moved from user page[edit]

Hey man, I was just adding the example of how the German, a nonlatinate language, uses Bibliothek as its word for library, and this guy keeps editing back to just the French version. It is expected that French has pretty much the exact Latin word for library, but less expected that German does. So I'm going to edit it back because my contribution enriches the page, while the other guy keeps removing that enrichment without warrant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Minty Penguin (talkcontribs) 11:38, 26 January 2015‎

(responded at User talk:A Minty Penguin) --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Interference Archive[edit]

I've nominated this article for DYK here. Please tell me if you want this nomination to be deleted. Thanks. Epic Genius (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Fine with me, but thanks for the notice/offer. I'm trying to procure images, so was waiting on that to self-nominate, but it's unclear if they're coming and I don't know that I would've gotten around to it within the deadline so it's probably best you did so. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Epic Genius (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Do you have any hooks other than what I put up? I'd be interested in seeing what your proposed hooks are. Epic Genius (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015[edit]

Ross William Ulbricht[edit]

If Ulbricht is convicted of the crime, I'm assuming that would dispel your WP:CRIME objections to an article about him. His is a fascinating case, and he is an interesting person very much in the public eye. I for one would search Wikipedia for information about him. BTW, are you an administrator? Chisme (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chisme: Certainly if he were convicted, WP:BLPCRIME would not apply (I think that's the link you mean). WP:CRIME, which relates to notability rather than BLP policy, would still be an issue to be considered since it starts with A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Since the Silk Road article is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to Dread Pirate Roberts, that would seem to mean it should go there. But notability really was a distant secondary concern when I redirected those two articles. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, and no, I'm not an administrator. By the way, I started a thread over at the BLPN on the subject, if you would like to weigh in: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Trapped In Static[edit]

Hi there, thank you for reaching out. I am just a fan of the band and specifically Athan Hilaki since he was with GAD. There are plenty of articles online that show the bands history as well as the musician itself, articles from established websites, which you can locate in the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outliner (talkcontribs) 02:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Outliner: Hi. I think we have three parallel threads going now. :) To condense, I think this is best taken over to the deletion discussion. Check out the notability criteria for bands to ensure it does indeed meet that criteria (most bands don't), gather all the articles/links you can find (the reliable ones), and include them with an argument for it being kept at the discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trapped In Static. I do always look myself before nominating and couldn't find enough sources to support it, but I could certainly be wrong. Since it looks like they have roots in Greece it made me wonder if some were available in Greek that I wouldn't be seeing by searching in English. But yes, do add them to the deletion discussion. Remember, too, to finish every talk page post you write with four tildes (like ~~~~). Doing so will sign your post. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Hi. I have added some links on that article from well established websites, I hope these work. Thank you.